Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

HR 3200 vs. Anthony Weiner's single payer amendment (HR676)

PNHP provides this handy comparison chart, along with a lot of other material about the Weiner amendment:

Single-Payer Amendment HR 3200 As Written
Universal Coverage Yes. Everyone is covered automatically at birth. No. More than 20 million remain uninsured and tens of millions remain underinsured.
Full Range of Benefits Yes. Coverage for all medically necessary services. No. Insurers continue to strip-down policies and increase patients’ co-payments and deductibles.
Savings Yes. Redirect $400 billion in administrative waste to care; no net increase in health spending. No. Increase health spending more than $1 trillion over 10 years. Add further layers of administrative bloat to our health system through the introduction of a regulator / broker “exchange.”
Cost Control / Sustainablity Yes. Large scale cost controls (negotiated fee schedule with physicians, bulk purchasing of drugs, hospital budgeting, capital planning, etc.) ensure that benefits are sustainable over the long term. No. Uncontrolled costs ensure that any gains in coverage are quickly erased as government is forced to hike spending or slash benefits.
Choice of Doctor and Hospital Yes. Patients would be allowed free choice of their doctor and hospital. No. Insurance companies continue to deny and limit care and to maintain restrictive networks.
Progressive Financing Yes. Premiums and out-of-pocket costs are replaced with a progressive income contribution. 95 percent of Americans pay less. No. Continues the unfair financing of health care whereby costs are disproportionately paid by middle and lower income Americans and those families facing acute or chronic illness.

I like re-framing "Cost/Control" as "sustainability."

0
No votes yet
Turlock